The abundance of maintenance laws in India has created difficulties in determining the appropriate amount to be paid. This has led to a complex situation where multiple laws overlap, causing inconvenience for those required to pay maintenance. It would be beneficial to consolidate all forms of maintenance under a single umbrella to streamline the process.
Currently, individuals are approaching multiple forums to seek maintenance, even though there may be a single ground for it. In some cases, two separate court proceedings have been initiated based on the same ground, further complicating matters.
To prevent the misuse of maintenance laws and establish clarity on the amount of maintenance to be paid, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines in matrimonial matters. In the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 Vol 2 SCC 324), a bench consisting of Justices Indu Malhotra and R. Subhash Reddy ruled that maintenance should be awarded in all cases from the date the application for maintenance is filed.
The court has directed that orders or decrees of maintenance should be enforced using relevant provisions such as Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act, and Section 128 of Cr.P.C. Enforcement may be done in the same way as a money decree of a civil court under provisions such as Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 read with Order XXI of the CPC.
The guidelines provided in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha (2021 Vol 2 SCC 324) aim to address the issue of overlapping jurisdiction and conflicting orders in different proceedings, ensuring consistency in the practice followed by Family Courts, District Courts, and Magistrate Courts.
The guidelines state that in cases where a party makes successive claims for maintenance under different statutes, the court must consider adjusting or setting off the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s before determining if any further amount should be awarded in the subsequent proceeding.
Furthermore, it is mandatory for the applicant to disclose any previous proceedings and orders passed in them in the subsequent proceeding.
If any modification or variation is required for orders passed in previous proceedings, it must be done in the same proceeding.
In the case of Amarjeet Singh v. Union of India WP(C) No. 860/2022, it was reiterated that if a woman has been awarded maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC and subsequently files a petition under the Domestic Violence Act or the Hindu Marriage Act, the previously awarded maintenance will be taken into account. After a proper evaluation, new orders will be issued.
References:
- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-issues-guidelines-on-payment-of-maintenance-in-matrimonial-matters-165449
- https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/maintenance-supreme-court-maintenance-for-wife-section-125-crpc-hindu-marriage-act-domestic-violence-act-211789